|
jrodefeld posted:My point is that the punishment of so-called "victimless" crimes would be practically unsustainable when individuals would have to voluntarily pay for the incarceration and trial of individuals who just happen to be doing something that you don't personally approve of. I could possibly see some fundamentalist Christian group who really DID want to punish drug users, but the vast majority of people would not want to spend their own money to go after people who are minding their owner business. You realize this is the exact same argument we use to explain to you why people will loving starve or die of preventable illness in your supposed system, right? Like practically word for word. People will vocally support the idea of a social safety net for the poor, or for healthcare for those who can't afford it, but when push comes to shove they won't pay a goddamned dime for it unless they have to. quote:People think that someone else is paying the cost. If they had to pay directly to provide food stamps their attitude would change rather quickly. There may be a few fanatics who are so dedicated as to actually want to spend their own money to feed the hungry, but the number would be vanishingly small.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My point is that the punishment of so-called "victimless" crimes would be practically unsustainable when individuals would have to voluntarily pay for the incarceration and trial of individuals who just happen to be doing something that you don't personally approve of. I could possibly see some fundamentalist Christian group who really DID want to punish drug users, but the vast majority of people would not want to spend their own money to go after people who are minding their owner business. quote:It is very easy for people to say, in the abstract, that this or that voluntary activity should be "illegal". Ask people if heroin or prostitution should be illegal and the vast majority would say that they should. This is how democracy works. People think that someone else is paying the cost. If they had to pay directly to go after drug users who are minding their own business their attitude would change rather quickly. There may be a few fanatics who are so dedicated as to actually want to spend their own money to go after people who are not harming anybody, but the number would be vanishingly small. Heroin addicts are very seriously harming themselves and their community, and I would love to pay to get them help. Drug addiction shouldn't get a prison sentence, it should get rehab. Also, what if those fundamentalist Christians who really, really hate drug addicts privately and voluntarily finance their own justice system to incarcerate drug addicts? I think we need a cooler name, how about... DRO? I mean, you're arguing that everyone should only do stuff that benefits them, right? It's not like the rest of society has incentive to help them. And if they try to retaliate, those fundamentalist Christian's justice system will just find them guilty. Besides, any DRO that protects heroin addicts is going to charge MASSIVE amounts for the service. Many of them probably couldn't afford it. So they either have to quit, or go without a DRO. It's almost like... they aren't free in any sense of the word. But I suppose they made the rational choice to become poors, so eh, whatever. Not my problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Jrod, can you provide an actual example of a stateless society effectively fending off a better funded state-backed aggressor? Because I find that to be the most blatantly bullshit claim you've possibly ever made. In fact, if you can not only give me one, but five examples (which if your claim is correct should be easy) I will buy you a new avatar, platinum, or archives. So on top of being factually and morally superior to us lowly statists, I'm giving you a true economic incentive to provide examples.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Rome is basically the quintessential example of War Profiteering. War was massively profitable, not just for Rome itself but for the men out on the frontier slaughtering savages and taking their stuff. That is, in fact, the primary reason they were so aggressively expansionist; it made them stupidly rich. This is completely true, it has nothing to do with markets by the way, but war can be incredibly profitable for the obvious reason that it lets you take other people's stuff. That can be profitable under any economic system. jrodefeld posted:War is NOT profitable nor is it the "natural" outcome of the free market. See my previous post. I pointed out that war is only beneficial to those that wage it if the costs of war can be offloaded to a third party. The State can wage war primarily for two reasons. First, they can tax the people to pay for it, but this is rarely successful since the public will not stand to have their taxes raised too high. The second, and more fundamental way that State pays for war is by printing money, devaluing the currency. Without this tool, war is a losing enterprise on nearly every level. Slavery has been eradicated because a majority of people agree it's a moral evil and they are part of a state that enforces that morality on people who would dissent and disobey the laws otherwise. Moral outrage and strong words can't do this alone. This is the perfect example of something that justifies aggression and the type of moral trade-off (commit agression in one form to prevent it in another) that almost all people are willing to make. By rigidly defining aggression and preventing yourself from using it you're leaving yourself vulnerable to anyone who is willing to break with your trend. So independent of whether anyone wants an anarchist libertarian society anarchism in all forms is unsustainable. Disorganized groups of people will always be vulnerable to more organized groups of people and this is a pattern that has demonstrated itself countless times in history. Your allusion to slavery was telling - if it appears to you that your libertarian society could be successful it's only because existing modern states have created a relatively stable world order. But absent that, like a single cancer cell, all it would take is one bad actor to start agressing and start growing and the surrounding anarchist societies would be defenselessly consumed. This is of course one category of reason that people come together to form states in the first place. They recognize that if they don't form their own state, and necessarily give up rights doing it, then they'll end up in someone elses state regardless- something that's far worse. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My point is that the punishment of so-called "victimless" crimes would be practically unsustainable when individuals would have to voluntarily pay for the incarceration and trial of individuals who just happen to be doing something that you don't personally approve of. I could possibly see some fundamentalist Christian group who really DID want to punish drug users, but the vast majority of people would not want to spend their own money to go after people who are minding their owner business. "Well if Christians start imprisoning sinners under my system thats okay and not hosed up in the extreme because it'll be expensive for them" -jrodefeld Why would anyone want to live under your loving horror show of a society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
If I sold heroin in the libertopia I would pay privcops to protect me and murder/arrest my competition. Then I could charge as much money as I want off of my hopelessly addicted clientele.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is completely true, it has nothing to do with markets by the way, but war can be incredibly profitable for the obvious reason that it lets you take other people's stuff. That can be profitable under any economic system. And it doesn't even require taxes or fiat currency!  quote:Your allusion to slavery was telling - if it appears to you that your libertarian society could be successful it's only because existing modern states have created a relatively stable world order. But absent that, like a single cancer cell, all it would take is one bad actor to start agressing and start growing and the surrounding anarchist societies would be defenselessly consumed. Aptly put; all that would need to happen is for one DRO to go rogue and start aggressively seizing property and resources. After that, all bets are off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Miltank posted:If I sold heroin in the libertopia I would pay privcops to protect me and murder/arrest my competition. Then I could charge as much money as I want off of my hopelessly addicted clientele. And here we have the creation of Shadowrunners. Maybe Libertopia wouldn't be so bad if everything was neon and sunglasses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is completely true, it has nothing to do with markets by the way, but war can be incredibly profitable for the obvious reason that it lets you take other people's stuff. That can be profitable under any economic system. The conquest of the New World was largely not so profitable for the proto-governments of Europe (Spain being a bit of an exception), but the markets that formed because of it greatly enriched private individuals and merchants; the Triangular Trade being a good example. Also, the scale of American slavery was a product of the free market at the time, the various Crowns just went along for the ride. Not all historical forms of slavery were primarily market driven, but the American forms of slavery were quite definitely the product of the God of the Free Market. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Aptly put; all that would need to happen is for one DRO to go rogue and start aggressively seizing property and resources. After that, all bets are off. Theres a reason that everywhere there is a weak state presence is ruled almost entirely by warlords, despots, and pirate gangs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is very easy for people to say, in the abstract, that this or that voluntary activity should be "illegal". Ask people if heroin or prostitution should be illegal and the vast majority would say that they should. This is how democracy works. People think that someone else is paying the cost. People are intrinsically irrational actors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:And here we have the creation of Shadowrunners. Maybe Libertopia wouldn't be so bad if everything was neon and sunglasses. only if I get to be a troll wizard
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
As you and your party walk around the corner, you are confronted by a jrodefeld. He mutters, "in a stateless society there can be no war", and then lunges at you with a knife! There's a copy of Atlas Shrugged in the gutter, and there's a beautiful troll shaman hanging out in the distance who's trying to sell a small brown child. Everyone roll for initiative and state what you're going to do
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:As you and your party walk around the corner, you are confronted by a jrodefeld. He mutters, "in a stateless society there can be no war", and then lunges at you with a knife! I jack my cyberdeck into the nearest data-terminal and begin mining for bitcoins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I jack my cyberdeck into the nearest data-terminal and begin mining for bitcoins. You recieve brain damage because of heatstroke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I jack my cyberdeck into the nearest data-terminal and begin mining for bitcoins. Seattle actually has free wifi now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:As you and your party walk around the corner, you are confronted by a jrodefeld. He mutters, "in a stateless society there can be no war", and then lunges at you with a knife! I get a call on the phone and tracking chip that I am required to have surgically implanted into my head and am informed that my DRO has dropped me from its protection since I let someone who
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I jack my cyberdeck into the nearest data-terminal and begin mining for bitcoins. Caros posted:You recieve brain damage because of heatstroke. You begin frantically looking for a data-terminal while the jrod leaps past you. You find a Ron Paul Liberty Dollar with "END THE FED" scrawled over Ron Paul's face in cherry red lipstick. You receive 15 satoshis for contributing to your mining pool. Make a note that you have a penalty of -2 to all rolls for the rest of combat due to brain damage While jacked in, your brain wallet was hacked. You lose all of your bitcoins and your cybernetic left eye begins to malfunction, all that you can see with it is a giant picture of goatse Who's next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Karia posted:I get a call on the phone and tracking chip that I am required to have surgically implanted into my head and am informed that my DRO has dropped me from its protection since I let someone who Yes, that is what happens jrodefield is upon you! He lunges at you with a knife. Has anyone rolled a high enough initiative to save Karia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, that is what happens I looked up the jrodefield entry in the book and his knife attack deals 1d1-1 damage, so Karia is safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:What do you mean by contrived. The classic "company town" type of extortion/economic coercion is very common in both current and historic places with no regulations (like most of the 19th century) or effectively extremely pro-employer(like in parts of china) regulations. To be honest people often overestimate problems of company towns as being a result of scrip payments. Rather than the much more pressing fact that they were usually the only meaningful settlement around for miles and miles in a time before any sort of cheap and fast transport, creating inherent monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Seattle actually has free wifi now. Deckers and riggers still prefer hardline connections for security reasons, chummer. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
I'd like to thank the Free Market, Rothbard's name be praised, for giving us the best thread ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'd like to thank the Free Market, Rothbard's name be praised, for giving us the best thread ever. I think you mean to say me. I do have to say this is uncharacteristically brief for Jrod. He usually spams the forums for a solid 2-3 days of non-stop posting until he is banned or gives up. By contrast he's only replied to about 4-5 people a handful of times over three days. I'm almost let down, not that I begrudge him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:I think you mean to say me. Without the free market, how would you post this thread. Unless you don't like this thread, then stupid government regulations, causing bad threads!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
I'm reading Nozack for a class right now and I just can't wrap my mind around how State of Nature is supposed to make any sense. Seems to me like the 'natural' state of man is life in a socially regulated community and not some sort of unconnected solitary wanderer.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Okay here's a question for you liberies- what am I supposed to do? Me personally. I'm someone who's been recovering (and likely will require at least another few years to fully recover, though there's a significant chance that I'll never be back to 100%) from a serious health condition that very nearly killed me, and has put me pretty loving deep into debt. I can't do physical labor anymore- I can barely keep my own room clean because of how exhausting most labors are (dropping 100 lbs in two weeks is a real killer on the physique, lemme tell yah) and because of the nature of the condition, high amounts of stress cause me physical pain that can, in sufficient amounts, be crippling. Like not "I need five minutes" but "oh god my stomach is killing me I need narcotic painkillers to make it stop and I'll be curled up in bed the rest of the day crying for it to stop." And then there's the kidney stones! I pass big ones when they crop up. What pray tell do I do in your grand society? I'm currently surviving by living with my mom, who tried to be a good Christian housewife down here in the Southern Heartland which has left her fairly emotionally stunted (her problems are a whole different story but suffice to say every day is a struggle), we get by selling whatever junk and scrap we can cobble together plus government aid- without that aid we'd be poo poo outta luck and jolly well hosed. Obviously weighed down by mountains of physical and emotional and psychological problems, we're having hard times finding any sort of paying work. And we're far from the only ones- millions and millions of other people, some with worse problems, others without- are just flat out unemployed. Either because we're not desirable to hire for the aforementioned Reasons, or because of high job competition with limited jobs (here in Columbus there's something like 4 or 5 people competing per job give or take, not counting seasonal work stuff), or because some people just despise us (I once had a resume thrown out in front of me by a man who watched me hold the door open for a pregnant black woman and this offended him as he said "we don't need your type around here." Family owned business, the guy was the owner's grandson.) How do I survive in Libertopia? Seriously. How do those of us who have been less fortunate- especially for health reasons- get anywhere? I see no openings for any captains of industry who aren't in perfect health, with capital on hand from the moment they were born. Am I supposed to throw myself on the mercy of random charity, hoping that someone will either just give me money or give me a bare-subsistence job? Or do I just lay in the streets hoping to die quickly? It's highly unlikely that anywhere in the future I'll be able to "create value" for an employer, not by lack of will but by lack of health. How do those of us whose health has, through no fault of their own (unless genetic inheritance is somehow my fault, I guess I shouldn't have beaten the other sperm into that egg), made us into undesirable employees, exist in this perfect magical fantasy land? Serious inquiry by the by, everything I have said about myself in this post is true. I really want to know what I'm supposed to do outside of selling myself into slavery and hoping massah won't beat too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I looked up the jrodefield entry in the book and his knife attack deals 1d1-1 damage, so Karia is safe. A trashcan pops open nearby and a dwarven street samurai crawls out. He eyes your character up and down and says "typical metagamer" before spitting tobacco at your feet. "/r/ronpaultip 150 dogedollars" he states before walking away. You suffer 2 points of pride damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
I replace my hair with rainbow fiber optics in the shape of a pompadour, throw on my mirrored sunglasses and draw my twin smartlinked Ruger Super-Warhawks. Let's go be bad-guys. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I replace my hair with rainbow fiber optics in the shape of a pompadour, throw on my mirrored sunglasses and draw my twin smartlinked Ruger Super-Warhawks. Let's go be bad-guys. The jrodekin shrieks, "There are no bad guys in libertopia, the free market forbids this!" The entire party is knocked down and takes 1d4 damage to their eardrums. Anyone with a logic implant takes an additional 1d6 damage, as their circuitry attempts to futilely process this seemingly insane statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Easy there chummers, let's not turn this into a half-assed game of Shadowrun just yet. Sometimes they come up with interesting answers. Now granted most of us consider these forms of "interesting" to be "crazy as a shithouse rat" but that's beside the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My point is that the punishment of so-called "victimless" crimes would be practically unsustainable when individuals would have to voluntarily pay for the incarceration and trial of individuals who just happen to be doing something that you don't personally approve of. I could possibly see some fundamentalist Christian group who really DID want to punish drug users, but the vast majority of people would not want to spend their own money to go after people who are minding their owner business. I've been trying to understand your arguments, and the problem is, like most hardcore Libertarians, you're pulling everything out of your rear end. Yes, it's possible that in the stateless society, justice will be fairly meted out amongst everyone, and no man, whether he is rich or poor, will be given a harsher punishment just because of who he is. But it's also possible that the DROs will exist to protect the richest classes since they are the ones who have more money, and thus have more ability to buy justice. I do alright for myself, but compared to Mitt Romney... I can spend a couple grand a year on justice. Dude could spend three times what I make all year on justice and still have money left over to buy more justice. If the rich are going to game the system in their favor in a statist society, then it is reasonable to presume they will find a way to game it in their favor in the stateless society. A privately and voluntarily financed justice system is a business, and like all businesses, it is there to provide satisfaction to the people who infuse it with capital. So if I had a large benefactor who was paying me millions for my justice system, am I more likely or less likely to go easier on his son when he violates one of the rules of law. Sure, he killed someone while driving drunk, but... you know... he's a good kid. And after all, I don't want to piss off the person who's paying me. It happens today. My dad's company will do a lot to keep their biggest customer happy because they don't want to lose their business to a competitor. In all forms of government, whether it is a statist or stateless society, money (or resources in general) is power. The people who have more money will always have more ability to rig the game in their favor. After all, if you have something I need, and I only have something you want, I'm coming into negotiations with less ability to move you around. I need your money, you want my labor. You can find another person like me, but I can't afford to keep looking for work eternally. It's the same thing with your justice system. The justice system needs money to operate. They may find other customers, but they can't afford to piss off the ones who can afford to buy more justice. Of course, you'll tell me that people will find out about this and pull their business from the justice system. But hey, I could buy up media to counteract the claims. I could even buy media to try and tell you what I'm doing is right. I can buy services and tie them to using my justice system. Hey, you can drive on my road, but I'll give you a 90% discount if you go with my justice system. I can even pay people to rough up people who speak out, and when they can't get justice for their attackers, since the game is rigged, and no justice system is going to jail people who are defending their business at the behest of their #1 client, it's just bad business you know, that will convince you to shut up. Libertarianism only works if everybody agrees to play by the rules. And as modern society shows you, people don't like to do that. So I fail to see how suddenly, people are going to play by the rules in a stateless society just because there isn't a central authority pushing people around. So, please explain to me how a libertarian society is going to change the nature of man. Oh, and I'll make this fun - you have to do real research. I want you to provide me with sources of actual examples of this working, and not just scenarios pulled out of your rear end. Because as you can see, I'm very good at pulling things out of my rear end. Wait... I should probably reword that...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
I don't understand how anyone with knowledge of the gilded age can seriously support the libertarian ideology. I just can't. It's probably the most free market era in our history, and it loving sucked. The gilded age was so terrible that people reacted by rising up and creating the big government New Deal society; they saw what free market praxeology had brought upon them and ran screaming in the other direction. And yet libertarians think that people just want to go back to that time, but they'll have iPads this time so it'll all be okay
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Serious inquiry by the by, everything I have said about myself in this post is true. I really want to know what I'm supposed to do outside of selling myself into slavery and hoping massah won't beat too much. The answer for this is that in a stateless or weak-state society private charities run by unpaid volunteers will be better than a million welfare systems because reasons
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:For those of you unfamiliar with Jrodefeld or for those of you playing at home, this is the article to which he is referring. I've bolded the especially egregious bits. Its worth mentioning that Jrodefeld has given a full throated defense of this article, and I'd be curious to see if he still supports it even now. I intend to return to the minimum wage but regarding that particular article, I don't have any particular strong reactions one way or another. You have to understand first and foremost that libertarians are not central planners. Stefan Molyneux is just giving one possible solution to a few of societies problems in the absence of the State. Mr Molyneux, myself nor any other libertarian will have any power to force any particular vision of society on anyone else, apart from our moral admonition that the initiation of force is illegitimate and should be prohibited. There are many significantly more qualified and accomplished libertarian theorists who have gone into the potential methods of private defense services and dispute resolution, from David Friedman to Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Robert Murphy and many others. But I reiterate, none have the ability or the desire to force any particular social order on anyone else. Merely they write about possibilities as a way of illustrating both the feasibility of anarchism as well as the economic incentives that will exist in such a Stateless order. I think it's foolish to pick out a few articles and criticize me or other anarchists because of the theoretical musings of another libertarian theorist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
It's quite simple, Quarky. We've been living in relative comfort for so long since that dark time ended that everyone's forgotten how bad it is. Popular media over the years as it has set itself up demands and encourages us to work ourselves half to death to become rich because if you're rich you're IMPORTANT and if you're important the world is your oyster! And anyone can be important! Anyone at all! Just win the lottery or get lucky and make the Next Big Fuckmassively Expensive And/Or Important Thing Everyone Wants. But ignore that, ANYONE CAN DO IT! The well off often don't FEEL well off because they see people above them living even MORE affluently than they do and they are constantly told by society they need to keep pushing themselves harder and higher and reach for that silver spoon so they can be at the very top. The wealthy are told that they are by virtue of their wealth superior to all others and it breeds contempt for those they consider their inferiors- which is everyone who isn't like them. The Gilded Age is thus no longer seen as a thing that was a problem by them- those fools just caved in to the filthy peasants who want to take all THEIR rightful rewards. THEIR money. The world they live in constantly reinforces the idea that they are OWED everything and then some. That God himself will welcome them past the Pearly Gates because they worked so hard for their money. Some of them did and do work hard- some put in 100 hour work weeks, busting their asses to keep massive companies and juggle colossal multinational deals. But most don't. Most simply inherited what they have and their only real "work" has become a game of "how to keep all of what I have, spend as little as possible except on super fancy things I like, and hoard even more because whoever has the most money/toys/whatever wins." And in turn those people say "you can be like me too, you just have to work hard, LIKE I DID!" And they pay people to churn out endless media nonsense about how it's all true. And it sounds great to people who want to be on top, or who have very little or even nothing, for the same reasons communism sounds good- you can have it all too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The gilded age was so terrible that people reacted by rising up and creating the big government New Deal society; they saw what free market praxeology had brought upon them and ran screaming in the other direction. You could say the same for former socialist states, even social democracies in Europe are privatizing services.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You could say the same for former socialist states, even social democracies in Europe are privatizing services. Not really, at least not in the same way. I mean you forget to mention that the two endgames are for two completely seperate outcomes. The gilded age new deal transition was a battered business sector going into full on retreat, while the new shift is those same businesses recollecting themselves and attempting to reassert their complete dominance. One is the outcome of failure, while the other is actually the outcome of success, maybe to much of it. edit: This doesn't exactly apply to socialist countries, but they aren't actually really successful at the moment. Pre or post transition. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod, can you provide an actual example of a stateless society effectively fending off a better funded state-backed aggressor? Because I find that to be the most blatantly bullshit claim you've possibly ever made. In fact, if you can not only give me one, but five examples (which if your claim is correct should be easy) I will buy you a new avatar, platinum, or archives. So on top of being factually and morally superior to us lowly statists, I'm giving you a true economic incentive to provide examples. Well I think he's already answered this question. In Libertopia, we will not have fiat currency or taxation and will thus be unable to defend against even a poorly funded invasion  . Can't have war without fiat currency and taxation, don't ya know! Therefore, no stateless society will ever win a war against a state-backed aggressor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Hans Hoppe...But I reiterate, none have the ability or the desire to force any particular social order on anyone else. Well you know except for forcing communists and liberals to become slaves. Your ideology is morally and intellectually bankrupt. I would describe you as the same but that would imply you ever once had either. Here's a thought experiment, as much as I enjoy calling jrod stupid, how many statist public schools could have been built with the money spent on electricity wasted on this clod by the hundreds of posters over the years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:50
|
|